A Heated Debate, But Who Cares?

Bertrand Russell
(From: Wikipedia)

"What if realism were true, but everyone were a nominalist, or vice versa--would there be any difference whatever in the world?" (149) --Bertrand Russell quoted in Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins, A Short History of Philosophy

A little background here: Realism is a metaphysical theory that dates back to Plato. It holds that for all the particular things or attributes in the world with the same appellation (e.g., triangles, white-colored things), there is a corresponding Form or universal that exists in a higher, non-material reality. All of the particular examples of that thing or attribute in the material world exist by participation in the Formal or universal thing. The Form is the perfect ideal by which all instances of it are measured.

Nominalists maintain that there are no Forms or universals existing in a higher reality or anywhere at all. Nominalism dates to the medieval philosopher Peter Abelard, but has similarities with Aristotle's ideas on this matter as well. All that exist are particular, material things and their attributes. For example, there is no Form of a tree through which all trees acquire their essential existence. All that exists are particular trees, despite the fact that we have the same appellation (viz., "tree") for all of them.

This is a highly simplified summary of a fierce debate that has raged for well over 2000 years. But Russell has a point. Is it a major concern for most people how it is that we are capable of using the same adjective "white" to describe many different instances of things with that color? I think probably not.